There was a Tarantino discussion going on about five pages back in the movie thread that some of you might enjoy reading if you missed it. Some bonds were strengthened, some egos wounded, some memories forged that will never be forgotten. But we all came through it together.

Reposting this from there (slightly edited) because I don't feel like writing it all over again:

Under_Starmere wrote:

Just to weigh in on the Tarantino inferno while it's still raging, I suppose I ultimately see him as the epitome of a style-over-substance artist. His works, while superficially engaging in certain ways, leave me entirely hollow, and even when speaking only to style I can't summon much admiration for him because of how frequently and eagerly he indulges in what amounts to masturbatory quasi-plagiarism. His ideas simply aren't his half the time. The whole thing is just kind of perverse... there's very little originality there, cloying caricaturism, terrible fucking writing... shit, even the action bits usually aren't convincing, to say nothing of the casting choices.

The most I can give the man is that he's a collage artist of sorts, and collage doesn't necessarily have to suck. I respect his knowledge of cinema, and his obvious ability to geek out on film is pretty intense. It's just his way of going about things doesn't create much of anything truly new, despite the attributions of "genius"; instead of a compelling synthesis of influences you get the cinematic equivalent of sitting in some man-child's poster-plastered bedroom, listening to him go through his top 200 favorite scenes in film history. It's just... kind of odious.

And one last point to end this on: One of the biggest failures of Tarantino's work is that it tries as hard as it can to co-opt the camp charisma that those 60s/70s films brought about, yet goes about it so extremely self-consciously that it can't hope to hold any of the DIY naivete that gave rise to that special personality in the first place.

What I forgot to mention the first time I wrote this is that I don't wholly hate or decry everything Tarantino does. Pulp Fiction was neat, especially for the time it came out, his work on True Romance I remember being pretty good, and the overall panache with which he does things is admirable. His movies are pretty memorable, at least. I just really REALLY can't get on board with his stuff for the most part due to the factors I cited above.

Riffs, I totally understand you, man. Irony being, the reason some of us are way into Tarantino is the way everything tends to connect. Like I stated in my original post, when it is a Tarantino work, YOU KNOW IT! His movies are bound together quintessentially by his "voice". It is a style and one I appreciate very much.

Yeah, the thing with Tarantino is that, due to the man's particular style, you whether like his work or not, and if his approach to filmmaking doesn't resonate with you, well..... You're most likely wasting your time. I personally like his work for two main factors; his little tributes to old cinema, and how he manages to get the best out of every single actor he casts for his movies.

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

It's Armond White. You either love his views or think he's a fuck-head. This time is no different. But, I like him a lot, even when I hate what he says (Resident Evil and Transporter 2 are better movies than 90% of anything else? [this was an actual thing he says constantly] good grief....)

I actually laugh while reading these articles because while these people take Tarantino movies way too seriously and forget that all he's claiming to do is entertaining people, Tarantino himself is laughing all the way to the bank all the while winning Golden Globes and Oscars. It just amuses me that people get so worked up over a movie like Django Unchained which is just so obviously overblown and sarcastic.

Last edited by Razakel on Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

My beef with Tarantino is the soundtracks to his movies. I don't know how, but they manage to rub me the wrong way every time. I usually enjoy the movies themselves, there's always some clever dialogue and all, but I dunno... a lot of it borders on rockabilly-esque imagery and that shit is my kryptonite.

I actually laugh while reading these articles because while these people take Tarantino movies way too seriously and forget that all he's claiming to do is entertaining people, Tarantino himself is laughing all the way to the bank all the while winning Golden Globes and Oscars. It just amuses me that people get so worked up over a movie like Django Unchained which is just so obviously overblown and sarcastic.

So your response to intelligent critique is "Lol you buttmad!". Maybe the fact that this is how the movies lead you to thinking about them is an aspect of what makes them so bad.

Your next argument should be that anyone who criticizes Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for anything other than their films' ability to turn a profit "Just doesn't get it!" since all their claiming to do is get box office numbers.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

This may be the one and only time I agree with John, which I admit for him, may not be a very enviable position. Tarantino is quite possibly the single most overrated film director I know of. I just cannot see the appeal in his work.On another note, I was never quite sure if Inglorious Bastards was a critique on how Nazi Germany has become this sort of demonic caricature, to the point where brutally killing every German soldier is totally justifiable in the eyes of Hollywood and it's audience... or if I'm giving the man some very undue credit.

"A bit" is very generous. A chuckle here and there. A little bit of (pretty strong) violence here and there. All packed in a giant mess of yawn, ending in a huge anticlimax.Horrible soundtrack as well and one of the most uncharismatic main figures I ever saw. I guess he is supposed to be "cool" and talking isnt "cool". HipHop is "cool". Saying "Nigger" is "cool". Urghs. Yeah, I´m not a fan of Django.

Those who say QT is a person of style over substance - arent all directors are people of style over substance when we see the example of Batman movies - Tim's style vs. Nolan's. The substance is more or less the same with different variations in writing. Isnt it the style that we like or dislike about a director. QT is a style, Guy Richy is a style, Spielberg is a style.

arent all directors are people of style over substance when we see the example of Batman movies - Tim's style vs. Nolan's. The substance is more or less the same with different variations in writing. Isnt it the style that we like or dislike about a director. QT is a style, Guy Richy is a style, Spielberg is a style.

I disagree with that. The director is in the driver's seat to ultimately call all the shots. Films can have (or lack) style and/or substance. Because of the nature of the medium, style tends to jump at you more than substance in movies but it doesn't mean the substance isn't there. Often, the substance is imbedded in the style.

Of course, not every person watching a film will agree on which movies and directors are good or bad at providing either or both.

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

I was never quite sure if Inglorious Bastards was a critique on how Nazi Germany has become this sort of demonic caricature, to the point where brutally killing every German soldier is totally justifiable in the eyes of Hollywood and it's audience... or if I'm giving the man some very undue credit.

Actually, you could make a case for that, especially considering how the Nazis are depicted as very educated, classy, and civilized, while the people fighting them are seen as savage, merciless brutes. Tarantino made it a point to give the movie some kind of Ying Yang styled POW; everything considered bad has something good to it, and vice versa.

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

Actually, you could make a case for that, especially considering how the Nazis are depicted as very educated, classy, and civilized, while the people fighting them are seen as savage, merciless brutes. Tarantino made it a point to give the movie some kind of Ying Yang styled POW; everything considered bad has something good to it, and vice versa.

Genocide doesnt get a cute touch all of the sudden just because those inflicting it being portrayed educated, classy and civilized. And everbody knows what the Nazis did.

Anyway, my point being....I dont think IB or Django are movies you should look for a deeper meaning in. Prolly goes for all Tarantino movies, now that I think of it.

Actually, you could make a case for that, especially considering how the Nazis are depicted as very educated, classy, and civilized, while the people fighting them are seen as savage, merciless brutes. Tarantino made it a point to give the movie some kind of Ying Yang styled POW; everything considered bad has something good to it, and vice versa.

Genocide doesnt get a cute touch all of the sudden just because those inflicting it being portrayed educated, classy and civilized. And everbody knows what the Nazis did.

Never said it did. It's just that the movie makes and emphasis in saying that there's no such thing as truly "black and white" morality. Monsters can be sympathetic, and heroes can do reprehensible things.

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

Genocide doesnt get a cute touch all of the sudden just because those inflicting it being portrayed educated, classy and civilized. And everbody knows what the Nazis did.

This may come as a shock to you, but not only was most of Europe anti-semitic at the time (IIRC, many Jews were not allowed into other countries to escape the nazi regime), but very few people were actively involved in murdering Jewish people (I mean out of the population, not some sort of holocaust denial thing), despite being brainwashed into believing they were sub-human. I'm sure you could also find stories of American or Allied soldiers raping and what not, but that wouldn't mean it would be OK to just call every single person of an Allied country a disgusting monster.

Genocide doesnt get a cute touch all of the sudden just because those inflicting it being portrayed educated, classy and civilized. And everbody knows what the Nazis did.

This may come as a shock to you, but not only was most of Europe anti-semitic at the time (IIRC, many Jews were not allowed into other countries to escape the nazi regime), but very few people were actively involved in murdering Jewish people (I mean out of the population, not some sort of holocaust denial thing), despite being brainwashed into believing they were sub-human. I'm sure you could also find stories of American or Allied soldiers raping and what not, but that wouldn't mean it would be OK to just call every single person of an Allied country a disgusting monster.

I really dont know why you throw this at me. Its totally out of context.I was talking about the movie, not reality.

<----from Austria, not USA (Hitler was Austrian)

Quote:

Never said it did. It's just that the movie makes and emphasis in saying that there's no such thing as truly "black and white" morality. Monsters can be sympathetic, and heroes can do reprehensible things.

Yeah, I get that. I just dont think it justifies as "deep meaning" in a movie. Its common knowledge.

Tarantino is just ok. I like some of the stuff he's been involved with (Inglourious Basterds, Natural Born Killers) but some of his other stuff is pretty bad. Death Proof in particular being one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Death Proof is absolutely brilliant, dude. Maybe you just did not get the whole idea behind it. Killing Zoe was produced by Tarantino, and is directed by his former "team mate" Roger Avary, so you should expect it to be similar. And Guy Ritchie is great on his own style, similar, but different. You guys should check out "Revolver".

_________________

Uncolored, on being a ladies' man wrote:

The best pickup line will always be, "Hey, my dick died... can I bury it in your ass?"

Death Proof was good. I certainly wouldn't call it brilliant, or even great. If you're not into old car-worship shit like Vanishing Point and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry then it probably wasn't for you to begin with. It was just that plus Tarantino's patented dialogue style.

Death Proof is absolutely brilliant, dude. Maybe you just did not get the whole idea behind it.

If a movie is just mediocre as far as entertaiment value goes, but somehow has a brilliant idea behind it (which I really dont see in Death Proof at all), its still mediocre.I dont care if there is 100 references and a million inside jokes in it.

Django Unchained has officially dethroned Kill Bill as my favorite Tarantino movie. Holy shit, that movie is quite possibly the most perfect movie I've seen in at least 5 or 6 years. There were no wrongs about it; only gloriously inglourious rights (see what I did there?). Every single person involved with this movie deserves an Oscar and free head.

If you have not seen this movie yet, SEE IT. FUCKING SEE IT. RIGHT NOW.

I was reading a latest media report about The Weinstein Company ordering the halt to production of the Django toyline dolls/action after a couple advocacy groups complained. I know they're meant to be just movie collectibles but it's funny to imagine how a couple kids would go about playing with them: "I own you! Get back to work n****r!" -"No, fuck you, Candie!"

I was reading a latest media report about The Weinstein Company ordering the halt to production of the Django toyline dolls/action after a couple advocacy groups complained. I know they're meant to be just movie collectibles but it's funny to imagine how a couple kids would go about playing with them: "I own you! Get back to work n****r!" -"No, fuck you, Candie!"

I hardly see new movies these days, but it turns out I really like Django Unchained. I recognise that a lot of Quentin's stuff is deliberate homage, but most of the time that is ok with me, although kill Bill was certainly excessive. Anyway, Django is total exploitation of a breed which we have rarely seen since the 70s, and it put a pretty big grin on my face. DOn't know about all that Oscar talk or anything, but it's certainly a good movie and a whole lot more satisfying for me than the other blockbuster I saw recently...you know, the one with Tolkien's name attached to it.

Edit: hahah, Wombat, that's great. I ain't no raving QT fan but I'll be careful what movies we might watch in the future.

_________________Hush! and harkTo the sorrowful cryOf the wind in the dark.Hush and hark, without murmur or sigh,To shoon that tread the lost aeons:To the sound that bids you to die.

Would it be safe to say that Django is Tarantino's goriest film? Hell, the first death in the movie has the horse's head literally explode from the gunshot, and the shootout later in the movie is gruesome.